I have no idea how people can consider this to be a hype bubble especially after the o3 release. It smashed the ARC AGI benchmark on the performance front. It ranks as the 175th best competitive coder in the world on Codeforces’ leaderboard.
o3 proved that it is possible to have at least an expert AGI if not a Virtuoso AGI (according to Deep mind’s definition of AGI). Sure, it’s not economical yet. But it will get there very soon (just like how the earlier GPTs were a lot dumber and took a lot more energy than the newer, smaller parameter models).
Please remember - fight to seize the means of production. Do not fight the means of production themselves.
It’s a bubble because OpenAI spend $2.35 for every $1.00 they make. Yes, you’re mathing right, that is a net loss.
It’s a bubble because all of the big players in AI development agree that future models will cost exponentially more money to train, for incremental gains. That means there is no path forward that doesn’t intensely amplify the unprofitability of an already deeply unprofitable industry.
It’s a bubble because newer models with better capabilities only cost more and more to run.
It’s a bubble because as far as anyone knows there will never be a solution to the hallucination problem.
It’s a bubble because despite investments treating it as a trillion dollar industry, no one has yet figured out a trillion dollar problem that AI can solve.
You’re trying on a new top of the line VR headset and saying “Wow, this is incredible, how can anyone say this is a bubble?” Its not about how cool the tech is in isolation, it’s about its potential to effect widespread change. Facebook went in hard on VR, imagining a future where everyone worked from home while wearing VR headsets. But what they got was an expensive toy that only had niche uses.
AI performs do well on certain coding tasks because a lot of the individual problems that make up a particular piece of software have already been solved. It’s standard practice to design programs as individual units, each of which performs the smallest task possible, and which can then be assembled to complete more complex tasks. This fits very well into the LLM model of assembling pieces into their most likely expected configurations. But it cannot create truly novel code, except by a kind of trial and error mutation process. It cannot problem solve. It cannot identify a users needs and come up with ideal solutions to them. It cannot innovate.
This means that, at best, genAI in the software world becomes a tool for producing individual code elements, guided and shepherded by experienced programmers. It does not replace the software industry, merely augments it, and it does so at a cost that many companies simply may not feel is worth paying.
And that’s its best case scenario. In every other industry AI has been a spectacular failure. But it’s being invested in as if it will be a technological reckoning for every form of intellectual labour on earth. That is the absolute definition of a bubble.
o3 made the high score on ARC through brute force, not by being good. To raise the score from 75% to 87% required 175 times more computing power, but exactly stunning returns.
Unless we invent cold fusion between the next 5 years, they will never be economical. They are the most energy inefficient thing ever invented by humanity and all prediction models state that it will cost more energy, not less, to keep making them better. They will never be energy efficient nor economical in their current state, and most companies are out of ideas on how to shake it up. Even the people who created generative models agree that they have just been brute forcing by making the models larger with more energy consumption. When you try to make them smaller or more energy efficient, they fall off the performance cliff and only produce garbage. I’m sure there are researchers doing cool stuff, but it is neither economical nor efficient.
Untrue. There are small models that produce better output than the previous “flagships” like GPT-2. Also, you can achieve much more than we currently do with far less energy by working on novel, specialised hardware (neuromorphic computing).
Where, in that position piece, do they mention o3? Who “proved” this?
Additionally, I’m pretty sure that this “ARC AGI” benchmark is not using the same definition of AGI that you linked to by DeepMind. Conflating them is misleading. There is already so much misinformation out there about “AI”, don’t add to it.
Lastly, I struggle to take at face value essays written by for-profit companies claiming they have AGI (that DeepMind paper links to OpenAI essays). They only stand to gain monetarily by claiming that their AI is an AGI (to be clear, this is an opinion; I do not have evidence to suggest that OpenAI is being disingenuous).
Why is it getting an AGI stamp now? I was under the impression humanity has not delivered a sentient AI? Which is what the AGI title was supposed to be used for…has that been pulled back again?
I have no idea how people can consider this to be a hype bubble especially after the o3 release. It smashed the ARC AGI benchmark on the performance front. It ranks as the 175th best competitive coder in the world on Codeforces’ leaderboard.
o3 proved that it is possible to have at least an expert AGI if not a Virtuoso AGI (according to Deep mind’s definition of AGI). Sure, it’s not economical yet. But it will get there very soon (just like how the earlier GPTs were a lot dumber and took a lot more energy than the newer, smaller parameter models).
Please remember - fight to seize the means of production. Do not fight the means of production themselves.
It’s a bubble because OpenAI spend $2.35 for every $1.00 they make. Yes, you’re mathing right, that is a net loss.
It’s a bubble because all of the big players in AI development agree that future models will cost exponentially more money to train, for incremental gains. That means there is no path forward that doesn’t intensely amplify the unprofitability of an already deeply unprofitable industry.
It’s a bubble because newer models with better capabilities only cost more and more to run.
It’s a bubble because as far as anyone knows there will never be a solution to the hallucination problem.
It’s a bubble because despite investments treating it as a trillion dollar industry, no one has yet figured out a trillion dollar problem that AI can solve.
You’re trying on a new top of the line VR headset and saying “Wow, this is incredible, how can anyone say this is a bubble?” Its not about how cool the tech is in isolation, it’s about its potential to effect widespread change. Facebook went in hard on VR, imagining a future where everyone worked from home while wearing VR headsets. But what they got was an expensive toy that only had niche uses.
AI performs do well on certain coding tasks because a lot of the individual problems that make up a particular piece of software have already been solved. It’s standard practice to design programs as individual units, each of which performs the smallest task possible, and which can then be assembled to complete more complex tasks. This fits very well into the LLM model of assembling pieces into their most likely expected configurations. But it cannot create truly novel code, except by a kind of trial and error mutation process. It cannot problem solve. It cannot identify a users needs and come up with ideal solutions to them. It cannot innovate.
This means that, at best, genAI in the software world becomes a tool for producing individual code elements, guided and shepherded by experienced programmers. It does not replace the software industry, merely augments it, and it does so at a cost that many companies simply may not feel is worth paying.
And that’s its best case scenario. In every other industry AI has been a spectacular failure. But it’s being invested in as if it will be a technological reckoning for every form of intellectual labour on earth. That is the absolute definition of a bubble.
o3 made the high score on ARC through brute force, not by being good. To raise the score from 75% to 87% required 175 times more computing power, but exactly stunning returns.
Unless we invent cold fusion between the next 5 years, they will never be economical. They are the most energy inefficient thing ever invented by humanity and all prediction models state that it will cost more energy, not less, to keep making them better. They will never be energy efficient nor economical in their current state, and most companies are out of ideas on how to shake it up. Even the people who created generative models agree that they have just been brute forcing by making the models larger with more energy consumption. When you try to make them smaller or more energy efficient, they fall off the performance cliff and only produce garbage. I’m sure there are researchers doing cool stuff, but it is neither economical nor efficient.
Untrue. There are small models that produce better output than the previous “flagships” like GPT-2. Also, you can achieve much more than we currently do with far less energy by working on novel, specialised hardware (neuromorphic computing).
Your example is strange because, as far as I know, GPTs aren’t economical either.
Where, in that position piece, do they mention o3? Who “proved” this?
Additionally, I’m pretty sure that this “ARC AGI” benchmark is not using the same definition of AGI that you linked to by DeepMind. Conflating them is misleading. There is already so much misinformation out there about “AI”, don’t add to it.
Lastly, I struggle to take at face value essays written by for-profit companies claiming they have AGI (that DeepMind paper links to OpenAI essays). They only stand to gain monetarily by claiming that their AI is an AGI (to be clear, this is an opinion; I do not have evidence to suggest that OpenAI is being disingenuous).
Why is it getting an AGI stamp now? I was under the impression humanity has not delivered a sentient AI? Which is what the AGI title was supposed to be used for…has that been pulled back again?